MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] Geolocation E911 Patented
All -
I spend some part of my time dealing with IPR and patent issues WRT OGC
standards. Oh what fun! Never thought I would be able to carry on a
meaningful dialogue with a patent lawyer.
Anyway, in the Geo space, most patents are frivolous. There is a tremendous
amount of prior art in the GIS industry. The problem is that many companies
that apply for patents in the geo space have no idea of what has been done
before. The problem is exacerbated by a US Patent Office (or should I say
policy) that simply cannot properly evaluate all the patents being applied
for.
This said, it is hard to determine whether the IP 911 patent meets the
requirements for a patent. Below my signature is a really nice synopsis (I
must confess I wrote this so I hope it is correct!) of what constitutes a
valid patent under US law.
So, in terms of the IP 911 patent, the real issue is whether 1.) there is
relevant and significant prior art and 2.) whether the use of GPS for VoIP
EM calls is innovative.
In terms of the use of GPS, there have been similar (non-VoIP) applications
for many years. The mobile wireless industry has been deploying GPS based
applications with similar applications (fleet management, mobile work force
and so forth)
Cheers
Carl
The scope of the protection provided by the patent is defined by its claims.
Similarly, the validity of the patent depends on the definition of the
invention provided by the claims. If the invention as defined by the claims
does not meet the requirements for patentability (in particular, if it was
not new, or would have been obvious at the priority date of the patent
application), then the patent is invalid and may be revoked.
Therefore, when analysing a patent to assess either whether it is infringed
or whether it is valid, it is essential to turn to the definition of the
invention provided by the claims, with any ambiguity in the terminology used
in the claims being resolved by reference to the description.
As indicated previously, in order for a patent claim to be valid, the
invention defined by that claim has to meet two criteria: it has to be novel
(new) and inventive (not obvious). These criteria have to be judged against
information that was publicly available at the priority date of the patent
application. Any information that was in the public domain prior to that
date is known as "prior art" and may be relevant to the validity of the
patent. Any information that became public only after that date does not
constitute prior art and does not affect the validity of the patent.